Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`THE HONORABLE TANA LIN
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`ANGELA LUGO and ANDREW
`BRYNILDSON, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:22-cv-01230-TL
`DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC’S RULE 12(B)(6) AND
`12(B)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`January 19, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL)
`
`
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A.
`The NYVCPA and MVL Are Directed to Disclosure of Consumers’ Video
`Rental Histories. ..................................................................................................... 2
`Plaintiffs Allege That Amazon Improperly “Retained” Their Rental
`Histories. ................................................................................................................ 4
`Customers Consent to Amazon Retaining Their Rental History. .......................... 5
`C.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The NYVCPA and MVL Allow Amazon to Retain Plaintiffs’ Rental
`Histories. ................................................................................................................ 7
`The Statutes Do Not Provide a Private Right of Action. ..................................... 13
`Plaintiffs Do Not Have Article III Standing. ....................................................... 16
`Amazon Obtained Consent to Retain Plaintiffs’ Rental Histories. ...................... 18
`The Complaint Should Be Dismissed With Prejudice and Without Leave
`to Amend. ............................................................................................................. 20
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 21
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - i
`
`
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Agne v. Rain City Pizza, LLC,
`No. C10–1130–JCC, 2011 WL 11798573 (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2011) ..................................7
`
`Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl,
`616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 2000).............................................................................................8, 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
`901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC,
`30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................19
`
`Brodsky v. Friedlander,
`744 N.Y.S.2d 795 (Sup. Ct. 2002) .......................................................................................8, 12
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ...........................................................................................................16, 17
`
`Daniel v. Cantrell,
`375 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Earth Island Inst. v. Wheeler,
`464 F. Supp. 3d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................7
`
`Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2014) .................................................................................19
`
`Fagerstrom v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ....................................................................................19
`
`Friedman v. Rice,
`90 N.E.3d 800 (N.Y. 2017) ......................................................................................................15
`
`Gardner v. Martino,
`563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Giard v. Ouellette,
`No. CV-12-113-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2012 WL 5386958 (D. Mont. Nov. 1, 2012) .......................9
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - ii
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Hince v. O’Keefe,
`632 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2001).................................................................................................13
`
`In re DeVera v. Elia,
`56 N.Y.S.3d 609 (App. Div. 2017) ............................................................................................7
`
`In re Murack,
`957 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021) ....................................................................................7
`
`In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016).....................................................................................................15
`
`Leonard v. McMenamins, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00094-BJR, 2022 WL 4017674 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2022) .............................17
`
`McKee v. Audible, Inc.,
`No. CV 17–1941–GW(Ex), 2017 WL 4685039 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017) .............................19
`
`Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v. Sullivan,
`119 N.E.3d 1225 (N.Y. 2019) ....................................................................................................9
`
`People v. Gellineau,
`681 N.Y.S.2d 729 (Sup. Ct. 1998) .......................................................................................8, 11
`
`Pine Hollow Med., P.C. v. Glob. Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.,
`882 N.Y.S.2d 636 (Civ. Ct. 2009) ...........................................................................................12
`
`Rodriguez v. Perales,
`657 N.E.2d 247 (N.Y. 1995) ....................................................................................................14
`
`Rodriguez v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am., LLC,
`801 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................15
`
`Silkotch v. U.S. Dist. Ct. of Nev.,
`No. EDCV 20-583-GW-SPx, 2020 WL 5356920 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2020) .............................20
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) .................................................................................................................16
`
`State v. Schmid,
`859 N.W.2d. 816 (Minn. 2015)..................................................................................................9
`
`State v. Thompson,
`950 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2020)...................................................................................................14
`
`Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................20
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 19-CV-00005) - iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC,
`672 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................15, 16, 18
`
`T & R Flooring, LLC v. O’Byrne,
`826 N.W.2d 833 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013) ..................................................................................15
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct 2190 (2021) ........................................................................................................17, 18
`
`Wash. Bankers Ass’n v. State,
`198 Wn.2d 808 (2021) ...............................................................................................................8
`
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`709 F. App’x 862 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................19
`
`Wolfe v. Strankman,
`392 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Yates v. United States,
`574 U.S. 528 (2015) .................................................................................................................13
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2710 ..................................................................................................................2, 15, 16
`
`Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.01, et seq. ....................................................................................... passim
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 670, et seq. ........................................................................................ passim
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)....................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A (1977) ..............................................................................18
`
`S. Rep. No. 100-599 (1988) .......................................................................................................2, 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 19-CV-00005) - iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails for the most straightforward of reasons: The statutes Plaintiffs
`sued under simply do not say what the Complaint claims they say. Defendant Amazon.com
`Services LLC (“Amazon”) operates Amazon Prime Video, a service that allows customers to rent
`streaming video content. Plaintiffs allege that two state statutes enacted decades ago—New York’s
`Video Consumer Protection Act (“NYVCPA”) and Minnesota’s Videotape Law (“MVL”)—
`obligate Amazon to regularly destroy its own records of the videos Plaintiffs rented via Prime
`Video. The problem for Plaintiffs is that the NYVCPA and MVL say nothing of the sort.
`These statutes, instead, are directed primarily to limiting the circumstances under which a
`“video tape service provider” (a defined term) like Amazon may disclose its customers’ rental
`history information to third parties. The statutes provide, for example, that such disclosures may
`be made in connection with court proceedings, as part of the sale of a video-rental business, or in
`response to a valid law enforcement request. When third parties receive rental-history information
`through a permitted disclosure, it is those third parties who must then destroy the information after
`it is no longer needed.
`But that obligation does not apply to Amazon, as the statutes’ plain language confirms. The
`destruction requirement Plaintiffs point to does not mention “video tape service providers” at all.
`Plaintiffs’ construction of the NYVCPA and MVL is thus at odds with the statutory text, which
`ends the inquiry and requires dismissal. The error in Plaintiffs’ statutory reading is further
`corroborated by multiple canons of statutory construction, as Plaintiffs’ interpretation would make
`certain language in the statutes ineffective or superfluous, produce absurd results, and make
`compliance with the (non-existent) destruction obligation a practical impossibility for “video tape
`service providers” like Amazon.
`But there is more. Because the NYVCPA and MVL were never written to impose this sort
`of destruction obligation, there is no private right of action under either statute to bring a claim of
`the type Plaintiffs assert. Likewise, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the most basic standards of Article III,
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 1
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`because they suffered no legally cognizable injury when they looked up their own rental histories
`in their Amazon accounts and were reminded of videos they once rented. This trivial occurrence
`is literally the only “harm” Plaintiffs point to. Dkt. 1 (Class Action Complaint) (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 14,
`19. There is no suggestion in the Complaint that anyone, anywhere (other than Plaintiffs
`themselves) accessed their rental histories.
`Finally, even if Plaintiffs had a statutory right to vindicate or suffered any accompanying
`harm, valid agreements between Amazon and Plaintiffs allow Amazon to retain and use Plaintiffs’
`rental history. This is called out repeatedly in those agreements, which were assented to by
`Plaintiffs each time they rented a video from Amazon.
`Amazon asks that the Court dismiss the Complaint in full, with prejudice.
`
`A.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`The NYVCPA and MVL Are Directed to Disclosure of Consumers’ Video Rental
`Histories.
`There are only two statutes (and two corresponding causes of action) at issue in the
`Complaint: The NYVCPA and the MVL.1 Both statutes were enacted in the wake of the passage
`of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (“VPPA”), a federal statute designed to protect against
`unauthorized disclosure of consumers’ video tape rental histories. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 2710;
`see also Compl. ¶¶ 24-25. The VPPA was motivated by what Congress perceived to be the
`disclosure of such rental histories for improper purposes—wrongfully making those histories
`public for political or other inappropriate reasons. See S. Rep. No. 100-599, at 5 (1988) (“The
`impetus for this legislation occurred when a weekly newspaper in Washington published a profile
`of [Supreme Court nominee] Judge Robert H. Bork based on the titles of 146 films his family had
`rented from a video store.”). The NYVCPA was enacted in 1993, and the MVL in 1994.
`
`
`1 The NYVCPA and MVL are relatively brief. Because this statutory language is central to
`Amazon’s Motion, for the Court’s convenience the attached Appendix A contains the full text of
`both statutes.
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 2
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Because the NYVCPA and MVL are modeled after the VPPA, these two statutes likewise
`overwhelmingly concern unauthorized disclosure of a consumer’s rental history to third persons.
`Both statutes have as defined terms “video tape service provider” and “video tape seller,” which
`are businesses engaged in selling or renting video tapes or similar audio-visual content. See N.Y.
`Gen. Bus. Law §§ 672(4), 672(5); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.01, Subds. 4 and 5. The Complaint
`affirmatively alleges that Amazon is a “video tape service provider” under the NYVCPA and
`MVL. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31. The bulk of the statutes are directed to specified instances where a video
`tape service provider (like Amazon) may permissibly disclose a consumers’ video rental history
`to other “persons,” including in court proceedings, criminal investigations, as part of the sale of
`the underlying video tape seller’s business, or with the consumer’s consent. See, e.g., N.Y. Gen.
`Bus. Law §§ 673(2)(b)(i)-(ii), 673(2)(b)-(c); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 2(2)(i), Subd.
`3(2)-(3).
`Both statutes contain an accompanying private right of action that is, in keeping with the
`remainder of the statutory language, directed specifically to the issue of unauthorized disclosure
`to third persons. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 673(1); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 1. In other
`words, if a “video tape service provider” or “video tape seller” provides a consumer’s rental history
`to some third-party under circumstances not contemplated by the statute, then a cause of action
`could lie. As explained below in Section II.B, Plaintiffs point to no such conduct here—they do
`not allege that Amazon improperly disclosed their rental history to anyone.
`In each statute, there is just a single provision dealing with the issue of retention of
`consumers’ rental histories: “A person subject to this section shall destroy personally identifiable
`information as soon as practicable, but no later than one year from the date the information is no
`longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and there are no pending requests or
`orders for access to such information under this article.” See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 673(5); Minn.
`Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 6. This section does not reference obligations of “video tape service
`providers” or “sellers” at all.
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 3
`
`
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`To the contrary, the retention provision refers to retention obligations of a “person,” which
`is a term repeatedly used to refer to third persons who might, through consent or court order, obtain
`from a video tape service provider the rental history of a customer. See, e.g., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
`§ 673(2)(b)(i)-(ii), § 673(2)(b)-(c); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 2(2)(i), Subd. 3(2)-(3).
`There is thus nothing on the face of the language pertaining to retention to indicate that it applies
`to “video tape service providers” or “video tape sellers” and would impose upon such entities an
`obligation to regularly destroy their own records. Instead, it speaks to obligations of a “person” to
`destroy rental history information they might have obtained through one of the permitted processes
`identified in the rest of the statute, e.g., with the consumers’ written informed consent or through
`court order, once the need for that information has ceased. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 673(5); Minn.
`Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 6.
`The subsection dealing with retention also makes specific reference to video rental history
`information obtained by third persons through “requests or orders for access.” See N.Y. Gen. Bus.
`Law § 673(5); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 6. Thus, the retention provision would require
`the destruction of a consumer’s video rental history properly obtained for a court proceeding, when
`those proceedings had concluded and the information was thus “no longer necessary for the
`purpose for which it was collected and there are no pending requests or orders for access to such
`information.” See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 673(5); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325I.02, Subd. 6.
`B.
`Plaintiffs Allege That Amazon Improperly “Retained” Their Rental Histories.
`Plaintiff Angela Lugo, a New York resident, alleges a single cause of action for violation
`of the NYVCPA. Compl. ¶¶ 60-69. Plaintiff Andrew Brynildson, a Minnesota resident, alleges the
`same as to the MVL. Id. ¶¶ 71-81. The harm claimed is that Amazon improperly “maintains” each
`Plaintiff’s “video rental histories” for content that each has rented via Amazon Prime Video. Id.
`¶¶ 68, 79. Plaintiffs do not allege that their video rental histories were disclosed to any third party
`without their consent. Rather, they allege that each could view, in their own accounts, “the titles
`of the videos [they] rented, as well as the date [they] rented it and the price [they] paid for it.” Id.
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 4
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`¶¶ 14, 19. So, the sole “injury” Plaintiffs claim they suffered occurred when they accessed their
`own Amazon Prime Video account history—records whose confidentiality the Complaint does not
`claim was ever compromised—and saw the “titles of the videos” each of them had chosen to rent.2
`Plaintiffs allege that when Amazon retained this information and provided it to them on
`request, Amazon violated the NYVCPA and MVL because these records reflect rentals each
`Plaintiff made more than one year prior. Id. ¶¶ 12-14, 17-19 (alleging that as of June 2022, Lugo’s
`account history still displayed the titles of videos rented in January 2020 and Brynildson’s account
`history still displayed the titles of videos rented in March 2021). In Plaintiffs’ view, Amazon
`should have deleted all records of rentals 30 days after the rental was requested, because 30 days
`is the expiration period for videos rented through Amazon Prime Video. Id. ¶¶ 66-68, 77-79.
`Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that Amazon can maintain records of a consumer’s rental history
`for, at most, one year. Id. ¶ 51. The Complaint thus alleges the NYVCPA and MVL require
`Amazon to destroy all records of individual rental histories for each individual customer no more
`than one year after the rental period has expired for that individual video. Id. ¶¶ 64-67, 75-78.
`C.
`Customers Consent to Amazon Retaining Their Rental History.
`Amazon customers like Plaintiffs who rent videos from Amazon Prime Video must first
`create an account on Amazon.com and agree to Amazon’s Conditions of Use. See Declaration of
`Eugide Matondo in Support of Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss (“Matondo Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-3, 6-8; see
`also Compl. ¶¶ 41-42. Subsequently, every time a customer rents or purchases a video with
`Amazon Prime Video, they must agree to Amazon Prime Video’s Terms of Use (the “Terms of
`Use”). Matondo Decl., ¶ 6. Customers are affirmatively advised of their assent to the Terms of Use
`
`2 Amazon interprets Plaintiffs’ Complaint to allege that the purported breach of the
`NYVCPA and MVL occurred as to the retention of information regarding the specific titles of the
`videos they rented. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8-9, 50. The Complaint alludes to Amazon retaining Plaintiffs’
`credit card information and name, although it does not allege with any specificity that this would
`have violated either statute in the context of Plaintiffs’ ongoing relationship with Amazon. Id. ¶¶ 5,
`7, 49. Nevertheless, to the extent the Complaint could be construed as having embraced the
`retention of this information, Amazon’s arguments pertaining to retention of video rental history
`all apply with equal force to its retention of credit card and name information, too.
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 5
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`with each rental or purchase, through a hyperlink labeled “Terms” that is displayed in contrasting
`text on the order page for the rental. Id. ¶ 7. The Terms of Use incorporate by reference Amazon’s
`Conditions of Use as well as Amazon’s Privacy Notice. Id. ¶ 8.
`Multiple provisions in the Terms of Use and Privacy Notice explain that Amazon collects
`information regarding a customer’s rentals and related purchases.
`The Terms of Use specify that usage of the Prime Video Service involves providing
`Amazon “with information relating to your use and the performance of the Service and Software.”
`Id., Ex. 1 (Terms of Use § 5(b)). This includes viewing history: “For example, the Software may
`provide Amazon with information related to the Digital Content that you download and stream
`and your use of that Digital Content (such as whether and when you viewed the Digital Content,
`which may, among other things, help us measure the Viewing Period for Rental Digital Content).”
`Id. (emphasis added).
`The accompanying Privacy Notice likewise specifies that Amazon collects and uses
`information obtained when consumers “download, stream, view, or use content on a device or
`through a service or application on a device” or “use our services such as Prime Video.” Id., Ex. 2
`(Privacy Notice) at “Examples of Information Collected.” The Privacy Notice also explains that
`Amazon collects “purchase and content use history.” Id. It goes on to identify multiple permitted
`uses for collected information including to “communicate with you about orders, products and
`services” as well as to “recommend features, products, and services that might be of interest to
`you.” Id. (“For What Purposes Does Amazon Use Your Personal Information.”). Thus, the Terms
`of Use and Privacy Notice confirm, repeatedly, that Amazon collects and retains information
`pertaining to customers’ video rental histories.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal adequacy of a complaint. “Dismissal can be based
`on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable
`theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To survive a motion
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 6
`
`
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim
`to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation
`omitted). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements
`of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (citation omitted).
`A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the plaintiff’s showing of subject matter jurisdiction.
`The party invoking federal court jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the court has the
`authority to grant the relief requested. Earth Island Inst. v. Wheeler, 464 F. Supp. 3d 1138, 1141
`(N.D. Cal. 2020). A challenge pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) may be facial or factual. See White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). In a facial attack, the jurisdictional challenge is confined to
`the allegations pled in the complaint, and the challenger asserts that those allegations are
`insufficient “on their face” to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358,
`362 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`The NYVCPA and MVL Allow Amazon to Retain Plaintiffs’ Rental Histories.
`Whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim under either the NYVCPA or MVL turns on whether
`the right they have claimed is provided for by these statutes. Agne v. Rain City Pizza, LLC, No.
`C10–1130–JCC, 2011 WL 11798573, at *5 (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2011) (plaintiff fails to state a
`claim for relief when statute does not apply to the conduct complained of). The answer to that
`question depends principally on the statutes’ text. See In re DeVera v. Elia, 56 N.Y.S.3d 609, 613
`(App. Div. 2017) (“When interpreting a statute, we turn first to its text as the best evidence of the
`Legislature’s intent and as a general rule a statute’s plain language is dispositive.”); In re Murack,
`957 N.W.2d 124, 128 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021) (“The goal of statutory interpretation is to effectuate
`the intent of the legislature. When the language of a statute is clear, this court will enforce that
`plain language without looking further.”).3
`
`A.
`
`
`3 Amazon assumes for purpose of this Motion, and without waiving any later argument on
`choice-of-law issues, that New York Law governs the interpretation of the NYVCPA, while
`Minnesota law governs the interpretation of the MVL. In all events, statutory interpretation
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 7
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Although the text is the most powerful indicator of statutory meaning, New York and
`Minnesota courts also require interpretations that effectuate the language of the statute as a whole
`without rendering certain words or sections superfluous or insignificant. People v. Gellineau, 681
`N.Y.S.2d 729, 801 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (“[A] court, in interpreting a statute, should not create a
`situation where words would be rendered useless or superfluous. . . . Each word of a statute is to
`be interpreted to serve a useful purpose.”) (internal citations omitted); Am. Family Ins. Grp. v.
`Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000) (“A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible,
`to give effect to all of its provisions; no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous,
`void, or insignificant.”). Courts must also avoid constructions that would produce absurd or
`unreasonable results. See Brodsky v. Friedlander, 744 N.Y.S.2d 795, 796 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (“The
`guidelines for the construction and interpretation of statutes provides that a Court shall construe a
`statute to avoid unreasonable or absurd interpretations of the law.”); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 645.17(1)
`(“In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by the following
`presumptions: (1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution,
`or unreasonable.”).
`Each of these settled canons of statutory construction leads to the same conclusion: The
`NYVCPA and MVL do not impose the counter-textual and far-reaching retention obligations the
`Complaint invents. Plaintiffs’ NYVCPA and MVL claims depend on language that is simply not
`in the statutes, that would make certain provisions a nullity (or at least of no practical effect), and
`that would render other sections nonsensical.
`First, the plain language of the NYVCPA and MVL does not impose any obligation on
`“video tape service providers” to purge records of consumers’ rental history. The Complaint
`alleges that the statutes “require[] that video tape service providers, like [Amazon], ‘destroy
`personally identifiable information as soon as practicable.’” Compl. ¶ 31. But this entirely
`
`
`principles of Washington law would require the same result. See, e.g., Wash. Bankers Ass’n v.
`State, 198 Wn.2d 808, 821 (2021) (“[W]e look first to the text to discern legislative intent.”).
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`(No. 2:22-CV-01230-TL) - 8
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01230-TL Document 18 Filed 11/11/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`misquotes the statutes, inserting language that is not there. The actual text of the statutes reads: “a
`person subject to this section shall destroy personally identifiable